Escalating by 2's or 3's

[Blitzaholic]

Why?

AKA why is it needed?

because it's potentially more fun. I still like my idea of having the same value of each set throughout the game.

that would work too


or add both options

[Genghis Khan CA]

Could be an option... I'd actually rather see sets that go up faster once they're higher, perhaps like

2,4,6,8,10,12,15,20,25,30,35,40,45,50,60,70,80,90,100,120,140,160,180,200 etc

Just because I've been in quite a few escalating games where the card cashes have gotten to 150+ and the number of armies left on the board means it's not worth taking anyone else out, resulting in stalemate.

Perhaps the slower escalation would be useful in public games or team games, when army counts tend to be lower, and the quicker escalation would be useful in games with players who look to preserve their armies in the earlier rounds.

Just my $0.02 on the matter

[Blitzaholic]

Could be an option... I'd actually rather see sets that go up faster once they're higher, perhaps like

2,4,6,8,10,12,15,20,25,30,35,40,45,50,60,70,80,90,100,120,140,160,180,200 etc

Just because I've been in quite a few escalating games where the card cashes have gotten to 150+ and the number of armies left on the board means it's not worth taking anyone else out, resulting in stalemate.

Perhaps the slower escalation would be useful in public games or team games, when army counts tend to be lower, and the quicker escalation would be useful in games with players who look to preserve their armies in the earlier rounds.

Just my $0.02 on the matter

hmm, interesting


i think a lot of us agree, that we should have some more options

[Blitzaholic]

Ive played escalating +1, and its actually pretty funny... it progresses slower, but the sets still get huge, so it adds a little bit of everything into it... and lets them last a few rounds longer

this would work too